Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

gavron writes "The ACLU has filed suit against DHS to stop the TSA from conducting illegal searches and detention. In the case at hand, TSA detained a Ron Paul staffer who was carrying $4,300 in cash in a metal box. The suit seeks to focus TSA searches on things having to do with increasing security on aircraft, instead of their current practice of 4th-amendment-violating searches, such as those of laptops, iPods, etc."

While I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, Precious Metal *is* better than cash. Cash just sits there and loses value to inflation.

There are two major purposes often associated with money, historically: as a long term store of value and as a medium of exchange. Precious metals, as a medium of exchange, are pretty inconvenient, but better than having no standard at all; cash is for superior for that purpose. Precious metals are a decent store of value. If you tend to store value by hoarding cash, you're probably be

I have found that the best way to "store wealth" is family and community. By investing money there, wealth accrues in ways that are not affected by inflation or commodity prices.

People who think they are protecting their wealth by buying gold, because some commercial on AM radio said that "gold has never been worth nothing" are making the fundamental mistake of thinking all historical trends always continue. If there's one thing we've learned about history, it's

Do you actually think that precious metals values don't fluctuate over time? Go look up silver prices during the period when the Brits were selling tons of opium in China. The outflow of silver caused global silver prices to fall.

This notion that somehow or other going back to metals is some sort of panacea is ludicrous, and one of the chief reasons that Paul and his merry band of maniacs are kooks.

But I'm also aware that cash *never* gains value, it only loses purchasing power.

Slver, on the other hand, both increases and decreases in value over time, but on average over the last 10 years, has steadily increased:
http://66.38.218.33/scripts/hist_charts/yearly_graphs.plx

Does this mean that Silver will continue to do so? No, obviously. Silver will continue to fluctuate, and can go down as easily as it goes up. It's up to the individual investor to decide when it is time to buy or sell their metal, just as with stocks, real estate, or other investment vehicles.

As a previous commenter mentioned, precious metals are a good option to park wealth, not spending money. Historically, precious metals have never been worth $0.

I know what you mean. The other day something remended me of another story on 60 minutes years ago about something called the "walking man" case which dealt with whether the cops could stop you and demand ID "just because". My Google-fu wasn't good enough to get past all the portable tape player links, but your reply goaded me into making an extra effort to force Google to my will and I came up with the name of the Supreme Court case from 1983, "Kolender v. Lawson". Thanks.

Yeah, because the ACLU is only about taking on cases of important people. Even though I don't agree with all of their positions, they are a very effective organization and have helped take down many unjust laws.

(and thank you again, Slashdot, for the five minute wait between posts).

Yeah, because the ACLU is only about taking on cases of important people. Even though I don't agree with all of their positions, they are a very effective organization and have helped take down many unjust laws.

(and thank you again, Slashdot, for the five minute wait between posts).

Some rights have more focused, specific advocacy groups which are in a better position to lobby for and defend those rights. If someone else can do a better job, why waste resources on the same thing when other rights don't have their own advocacy and lobbying group?

Because the ACLU is supposed to be for *all* rights, and for *all* people. The NAACP doesn't mean that the ACLU doesn't take a position on the issue of discrimination, why should the NRA stop them from taking a position on Gun Rights?

Granted, the ACLU can and should do whatever the hell they want, they aren't accountable to me (or anyone else who isn't a member), and they certainly are intended to be an ideological organization, it just seems odd to me that they claim that the driving ideal is individual rights and freedoms and then neglect such a major one. Then again, the American Civil Liberties That Aren't Self Defense Union (ACLTASDU) would be much less catchy.

In all seriousness, though: If you believe in liberty and small government you are called a "liberal" in Europe; in the US you are called a "libertarian" and the big-l "Liberal" term is reserved for the big-govt types...

"Liberal" is used in the US now to mean big government but it wasn't always. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other Founding Fathers of the USA were proponents of the liberalism of their tyme, which is now called Classical liberalism [wikipedia.org].

Some rights have more focused, specific advocacy groups which are in a better position to lobby for and defend those rights. If someone else can do a better job, why waste resources on the same thing when other rights don't have their own advocacy and lobbying group?

How the HELL could a "civil rights" organization worth anything NOT have a position on whether or not the 2nd Amendment confers an individual or collective right. Hell, given that every other Amendment confers individual rights, one had to do some pretty serious logical shenanigans to come to any conclusion that the 2nd Amendment only confers collective rights and not individual rights.

And here's some of the logical shenanigans a certain ex-General Counsel of the ACLU agreed with in the District of Columbia v. Heller dissent:

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a "collective right" or an "individual right." Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia.

That's even more dance, dance, dance BULLSHIT.

From the majority opinion:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53.

(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22-28.

(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28-30.

(d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30-32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32-47.

Read those page counts:

FIFTY ONE FUCKING PAGES that utterly refute the completely unsupported and utter bullshit statement "The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of

If you have any major organizations in mind that do zealously defend all civil liberties, feel free to mention them. I'm only aware of different sorts of piecemeal organizations. I pick and choose the ones that seem to best cover the range of civil liberties I care most about. In my case, the ACLU and EFF seem to most frequently defend the rights I'm most interested in (especially free speech).

No, but I have seen them stand up for a group of Nazi's, to help them be able to march in a demonstration that a local government (wasn't it a small town in IL) tried to prevent... They have a long standing history of working with people they don't like.. you know the whole "I disagree with what your saying, but I'll help you build a soapbox to say it from" kind of philosophy..

Because sadly, if you want the rules to apply when YOU need them to, then you need them to also apply when "THEY" get the shaft from them.

but too help you out, here is their EXACT philosophy on the second amendment.. From their own website [aclu.org]. Note the key sentance: "We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. "

It also doesn't hurt that he was traveling in connection with a political campaign. That helps raise other issues directly to the court, such as 1. interfering with a business (so the densest conservative can understand it) 2. creating a chilling effect for those who wish to work on a political campaign (so the densest liberals can understand it) and 3. it was someone who can clearly prove where the money came from and where it was going (so the densest independent can understand it).

Based on the recent Supreme Court ruling concerning DNA, it seems you really have to get all the pieces together so that a judge with a particular political axe to grind won't just ignore their duties and pull the case in a wrongheaded direction.

FTFA: "Bierfeldt recorded the audio of the entire incident with his iPhone."

That's a felony in Illinois, and the recording would have been inadmissable in court. Yes, my legislators are liars who don't want to be caught doing something dishonest because of recorded proof. Of course, my previous Governor is headed to court (then hopefully prison) and the guy before that is sitting in prison right now.

It probably IS a felony in a lot more places than just Illinois. And, it will soon be a felony in yet more places. That doesn't change the fact that the law is a worthless turd floating in the toilet of oppressive laws. Law enforcement should be subject to recording, anytime, and anyplace. The public pays for law enforcement, the public is entitled to know what law enforcement is doing. Remember, they work for us, not the other way around.

More like it happened to someone who knew they didn't have to answer a single question from some inexperienced TSA "officials." When he told them he didn't have to tell them why he had the money the Agent allegedly replied, "Well I'll tell you what. . . . You might not be legally required to tell me that but you will be legally required to tell the police officer who will come talk to you. I'm just trying to ask some questions to figure out what all this is about so I can get you on your plane. But you want to play smart ass, and I'm not going to play your f---ing game." Here's the transcript from his following detention (note that this is the ACLU's hosted complaint):

Agent: Is there a reason you're not answering any questionsBierfeldt: I'm not refusing to answer any Agent: I want you to see it from my -- from what we're seeing, you come in with some money but you don't want to answer any questions about how much it is that's in your possession.Bierfeldt: I don't know.Agent: Is it a secret why you have the money or something?Bierfeldt: I don't know the exact amount â" you're asking where my employment is, I'm simply asking whether I'm legally required to answer Agent: Well may I ask, the question is, why do you have this money? That's the question, that's the major question.Bierfeldt: Yes sir, and I'm asking whether I'm legally required to answer that question.Agent: Answer that question first, why do you have this money?Bierfeldt: Am I legally required to answer that question?Agent: So you refuse to answer that question?Bierfeldt: No sir, I'm not refusing.Agent: Well you're not answering.Bierfeldt: I'm simply asking my rights under the law.Agent: I'm asking you a question and in return you're asking me a question. You're not answering it.

And then later:

Agent: Why do you have all this money?Bierfeldt: That's my, I asked you sir, am I required by law to answer the question.Agent: I'm just asking you why you have $4700?Bierfeldt: That's my question, I don't understand the law.Agent: You want to talk to DEA about it? They'll probably ask you more questions.Bierfeldt: If they can tell me if I'm required to answer by law the question, I'll answer the question. I'm just looking for a simple yes or no.Agent: It's just a simple question. I just want to know why you have $4700 on you, that's not a usual thing. . ..Second Agent: He's refusing to answer any questions, he don't want to answer so, we [sic] gonna have to take him down to the station.Agent: I mean yeah, that's suspicious.Second Agent: DEA, FBI, and all those Agent: Every one of them.Second Agent: So we can do that.

Sounds pretty much how I'd react if you caught me in a really bad mood.

True: this all could have been avoided if the staffer had told them who he was working for and where the money came from. False: the staffer was required by law to divulge this information. I'm sure these guys are used to civilians rolling over for them everyday but if you ask me they're too used to being able to take your shit to another room and hold you there because they are bored.

The whole situation could have been fixed if one or other of the assholes had just answered "yes" or "no".

But unless they were going to lie, they would have had to answer "no", and the staffer would then have said "Okay, well since I don't have to answer can I be going then?" and they would have had to either let him go or continue to hold him after admitting that they had no legal right to require him to answer the question. And they wanted that question answered, legal or no.

So yeah, that wouldn't really have "fixed" anything from their point of view. They knew what game they were playing same as the staffer did.

The problem is that this is a tightrope walk. Police cannot give legal advice, with the possible exception of a Miranda warning. Usually, if they know the actual law under discussion they are allowed to quote it, because that is not "giving advice", but beyond that do not expect any legalese from law enforcement.

From a more practical standpoint, a police officer is not going to tell you that something he is doing is illegal or not required anyway, because that is an admission of guilt. And they know -- m

This kind of attitude is why our rights are slowly crumbling away. The Ron Paul staffer was not legally obligated to answer these questions. The notion that simply caving in and answering the questions anyway would have sped his passage through airport security has no bearing on any of this. He was clearly in the right and the TSA drones were in the wrong. He did nothing illegal and therefore should not have been held, searched, or subjected to questioning.

By giving in to the seemingly small intrusions on our civil liberties that happen on a daily basis, we are willingly giving up our rights. Unless we stand up for ourselves, even at the cost of possible inconvenience, the rights that we enjoy will eventually disappear.

Are you daft? The point is they had no business pulling him aside to begin with just because he had a stack of cash on him.

I'm so sick of mentalities such as yours. "He's just being an asshole!" No, he's exercising his god damn rights. Again, the whole point is TSA has been stomping all over people's rights searching them and detaining them and we can't let them do that.

It's bad enough when real law enforcement think they can get away with anything they like. But these guys are just fake cops...god damn.

Seems to me, you're looking at it from the wrong side. Why should he have to answer a question they have no right asking, just to make his flight and save hassle? If they didn't know whether or not he had to legally answer, they either should have called someone who did, or backed off. As it is, that's blatant intimidation. "We will get the DEA, FBI, and all those." "answer us or we will get you in a world of shit." They chose the intimidation tactic instead of answering his damned question about whether he

This is just a simple case of some little dick trying to be a big dick and then cry about it when he got called.

Story time! You are on your way to Toronto to attend your cousin's wedding. But as you get into the airport, you realize you have no cash and haven't bought a wedding present yet! So you're not sure if the ATMs in Canada work for your bank and you approach an ATM. You're in a hurry to catch your flight which puts you in Toronto just to catch the wedding and in your haste, you accidentally hit an extra zero after punching in $500 and then hit enter. You're now holding $5,000 in nonconsecutive hundreds (this actually happened to my friend once).

Ok, you're not putting these in your luggage or jacket so you put them on your person and they make a noticeable bulge in the front pocket of your shirt but you don't want to lose them.

Guard notices the bulge as you walk through and asks you what's in your front shirt pocket. You look nervous and start to tell him a contrived story about being in a rush and having $5,000 on you--which is, of course, a hilarious mistake. TSA agent doesn't buy it and wants to know what it's really for. Guy wants to know who you work for. Sad thing is you were just laid off by Best Buy and the severance package of $7,000 is the only way that transaction to your checking account went through. So you tell him you're an unemployed guy going to Toronto with $5,000.

The TSA agent informs you they just arrested a guy with a bunch of cocaine on him in the airport and he's pretty sure you were his contact to make the deal and bring it over to Canada. You don't have any police record and were cleared to fly when you got your ticket but that doesn't matter. After missing the wedding and a night in jail, they can't make it stick and let you go.

You're a victim of better safe than sorry. When--guess what--it's not illegal for you to walk around with $5,000 cash on you.

Nice story, huh? Be a shame if it happened to you. But I'm sure I just have an overactive imagination and we all have nothing to worry about.

After missing the wedding and a night in jail, they can't make it stick and let you go

Less the $5000 they're permitted to steal from you thanks to highly unconstitutional Civil Forfeiture laws that the Supreme Court refuses to do anything about because the government stuck the word "civil" in the title and therefore it's not a criminal proceeding and they don't have to deal with any of that stupid due process bullshit.

I'd rather my plane not blow up or get hi-jacked. If that means someone needs to get searched then so be it. Planes are private property - if you don't like it don't fly on it. You can always drive to your destination, or take a boat ride.

Yes...they are private property. So WTF is the federal government doing getting their noses involved?

I'd rather not be treated like a criminal when flying, and allow the government to violate my rights. Planes are private property - if you don't like it don't fly on it. You can always drive to your destination, or take a boat ride.

I despise gutless people. People who would unthinkingly hand over all their civil rights because they're pussies. Cash in a box is not going to threaten the safety of an aircraft and was out of bounds for TSA. They could have called the airport cops and said hey that guy's got a box of money. Unless it can be used as a weapon, it's none of their concern.

Unless you think he was going to go from seat to seat bribing people to help storm the flight deck.

This country was not founded by spineless people but we certainly allowed them to multiply and dilute the gene pool.

If he was carrying over $10,000 they could have reminded him of his legal obligation to file a CMIR. But he wasn't. Carrying $4,700 isn't a reportable event and is none of the TSA's business. (In case you don't know banking regulations: 31 CFR 103.23 requires that a CMIR be filed by anyone who transports, mails, ships or receives, or attempts, causes or attempts to cause the transportation, mailing, shipping or receiving of currency or monetary instruments in excess of $10,000, from or to a place outside the United States. The term ``monetary instruments'' includes currency and instruments such as negotiable instruments endorsed without restriction. See 31 CFR 103.11(k).)

Was this an international trip? If not, according to what you stated above, he has no reason to file a CMIR even if he was carrying over $10,000. And if it was an international flight (and he was carrying over $10,000), it should be handled by customs, not by the TSA. TSA agents should be focused on preventing items and people from getting on flights that pose a direct threat to that flight.

Unless you are deliberately out to "test the system" you will just make your life miserable with nothing to show for it.

You can't put a stop to official abuse unless you stand up to it. And, much as I disagree with Ron Paul and his supporters on just about every policy issue, that seems to be something that he and they understand and prioritize more than most people.

Yes, it sometimes involves personal inconvenience. That people are too interested in avoiding any inconvenience to stand on their rights is exactly what people who would whittle away at those rights rely on.

It's also wise from a practical standpoint to either give up your rights and cooperate with the agents asking questions you have a right to not answer, or plan your itinerary such that you can miss your flight.

No, the wise thing to do is stand up and defend your rights, because if you don't, the government will continue to trample them.

I don't think there is a limit for domestic travel BUT it would be wise to declare it with the airlines at least 24 hours before you boarded.

For the love of everything holy, WHY?!?!?!? If there is no legal requirement to declare the money, then for what reason would it be wise to declare cash with the airlines before boarding a flight? Is the passenger sitting next to you or a flight attendent possibly going to have a reasonable fear that you might bludgeon them with a wad of cash?

It's also wise from a practical standpoint to either give up your rights and cooperate with the agents asking questions you have a right to not answer...

From a practical standpoint, maybe so, but why should we, as law-abiding citizens of what was once one of the freest nations in the world, be forced and willing to hand over those freedoms to a thug just because he wears a uniform?!?!? If I don't have a legal requirement to answer the question, you don't have a legal right to detain me. PERIOD. The sooner we as a nation start getting outraged at abuses of power and start standing up for our RIGHTS the sooner we can live in a country we are proud of again.

Unless you are deliberately out to "test the system" you will just make your life miserable with nothing to show for it.

Maybe. But maybe Bierfeldt just seized an opportunity that presented itself. I admire his courage, and hope that, should I ever be in a similar position, I would do likewise.

Having spent time with the TSA, I can tell you first-hand that most TSA people are completely uninformed about their jobs, the law or just about anything they are doing. A TSA screener with half a brain wouldn't have done anything more than call in local law enforcement to perform any interrogations. There are standing instructions to inform law enforcement of anything including large quantities of cash. As to the performance of interrogations? Last time I was there, such things were never instructed. TSA screeners are not law enforcement.

The whole idea of "Department of Homeland Security" is born of a paranoid consolidation of power. It has done more to harm the efficiency of law enforcement and emergency services than it has done to help. The DHS should be dismantled and the pre 9-11 condition restored.

I am okay with government security screening, but only as far as their primary mission. If they do see anything else questionable, the ONLY proper action should be to inform actual law enforcement. "To observe and report."

No, but they do watch television programs like Law and Order and CSI where unconstitutional searches of the "bad guys" and roughing up suspects in interrogation are common story elements. Unfortunately, these TSA knuckle draggers are unable to distinguish reality from fantasy when the arrive back at work the next day and so proceed to "interrogate" a suspect like the crew on Law and Order or CSI might instead of actually doing what would otherwise be a boring rent-a-cop security job.

The intrusive security behavior of the TSA has all kinds of negative economic consequences, discouraging people from flying hurts the airlines, it also makes conducting business harder, and it separates families (with secondary but significant financial consequences). I'm very reluctant to take my family anywhere, it's such a great hassle to have your lunch and medications interrogated and seized.

And the difficulties of domestic travel are nothing compared to international. "Free Trade" makes no sense without the free-flow of people. A lot of what makes America economically appealing and strong is its openness and flexibility. I feel the travel clampdowns and growing hostility to foreigners plays a greater roll in the current economic meltdown than it gets credit for.

That is one of the worst logical fallacies I have ever heard. Your statement is akin to saying "I killed all the tigers in Pennsylvania," ignoring the fact that there were no tigers to begin with. You can't assume the DHS is working because no attacks have been made unless you have actual evidence that the DHS is stopping the attacks, not the same safeguards that were in place before 9-11.

Interesting, because because 2001, the last hijacking of a US plain was 14 years ago (1994). That was a FedEx employee hijacking a FedEx cargo plane, so TSA/DHS wouldn't do shit to help that.

Before that, it was another 8 years (1986), and that didn't originate in the US.

So please, stop acting like plane hijackings/bombings are even nearly a threat to everyday people. You should spend your time worrying about how to protect yourself from lightning strikes, you are far more likely to be struck by lightning (on the ground, every day) than have your plane hijacked.

Al-Qaida has attacked in the continental US twice: once in 1993 and once in 2001. After 2001, we undertook a number of activities not involving DHS with the intent of crippling the organization (such as it is). Since it's 2009, we've had about the same freedom from al-Qaida attack here that we did in 2001.

So you would rather the ACLU divide their resources so they can spend even less time on all the 1st amendment cases to fight for the right to bear arms when there is already several organizations that devote time and money to 2nd amendment challenges?

Personally I think if you believe that's a good idea you're a fool. If you want to devote your money to second amendment challenges then send your money into one of the dozen or more organizations solely devoted to the 2nd amendment, like the NRA. It would be foolish for the ACLU to divide their limited resources to action on the 2nd when there are so many more challenges to the 1st, 4th,, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th that they need to devote money to and there are so many other organizations whose sole focus is the 2nd. There are very few organizations that spend as much effort on 1st let alone even care about the others. Only a fool would hate the ACLU for being pragmatic about distribution of their limited funds to challenges where they are the only organization working on them.

Your statement about the ACLU working on 2nd amendment challenges is as silly as someone asking the NRA to work on 1st amendment issues.

If the ACLU's position was strictly, "We feel there already is a capable organisation defending this right, please see the NRA" then I'm sure the OP wouldn't have an objection. It's when they actively post a non-liberty response [aclu.org] to the amendment that the OP is complaining about. They've chose a very restrictive view of this liberty ("restrictive" == "opposite of liberty"), and that's what the OP is complaining about.

Further, they even post that, "in [their] view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue." The OP contends that this actually is a civil liberties issue, so takes offense that the ACLU would narrowly define civil liberties to just the ones they like - which seems to be exactly the opposite of what they purport to defend. It's the American Civil Liberties Union, damnit, not the American Civil Liberties That We Like Union.

The ACLU like any civil liberties organization must take a definitive view of what they believe the constitution means then defend that position regardless of how other laws, congress or the courts acts on those issues. The ACLU since it's founding has taken the position that the second amendment is a collective right, not an individual right. This position was also the position of our courts since the supreme court decision in 1939 United states vs. Miller that upheld a ban on sawed off shotguns. The recent decision D.C. vs. Heller appears to reverse that position but the ACLU wouldn't be a civil rights organization if they didn't hold their own positions rather than the popular or contemporaneous answer the courts provide.

And before the page you linked was updated for the Heller decision it strictly noted that they didn't feel it was their issue to defend because organizations like the NRA are solely devoted to it and have been attempting to bring challenges to the supreme court yearly for the last 20 years (and failing every single year except for the very recent guns are a collective right. This is no way diminishes the ACLU as they still provide defense of civil liberties, just because you don't agree with their position on the 2nd amendment doesn't mean the organization is somehow less effective. In fact even though they might have a different view of the 2nd amendment than yourself this doesn't mean they are actively supporting gun control, they simply ignore the issue. In my view that is not justification to attack them as many are keen to do (until of course they need them, such as Rush's frequent diatribes on the ACLU defending bad people while at the same time he relied on them to defend him during his drug trial). The simple answer is that if you support all civil rights and gun control is an issue on your mind then you should support both the ACLU and the NRA. Not attack the ACLU and demonize them for failing to spend precious funds on 2nd amendment challenges when the NRA is already carrying that banner. I should also point out that if you don't agree with the ACLU's position on the 2nd amendment the easiest way to change it to join the ACLU and work to change their position from within the organization, not attack them and refuse to support them.

Locally the ACLU is hated because they sued the local school districts a number of times for imposing the dominant religion on all public school students. These attacks occurs even though the ACLU has actively defended this dominant faith in suits more than once where they weren't the dominant faith and were being discriminated against. I've notice many people that refer to the 2nd amendment issue, but when probed their actual hatred is usually related to the ACLU's defense of 1st amendment issues such as the recent lawsuits involving ten commandment displays where other faiths weren't given equal access. People like to pretend they support civil liberties but when it comes to true freedom of religion where all faiths have equal access in government they balk at the prospect and demonize the ACLU for forcing them to provide equal access or stop using the government to foist the dominant faith's view on the masses.

The 2nd amendment is well defended. The NRA has more than enough clout to ensure that. There is no need for the ACLU to use precious resources defending it when there are so many other constitutional issues that need defending.

So you hate them because they don't fight ALL your battles for you?This point of view never made any sense to me. You hate them with a passion because they do great good, fighting for our collective rights, but there is one area you are interested in that they do not actively fight for, so you hate them? Yeah... that makes sense.

How can a "American Civil Liberties Union" that is really interested in protecting said liberties take a "neutral" stance on one of my liberties... and more often than not, an anti-liberty stance, in that case?

If you are supposed to fighting for my liberties, I hope you don't take a "neutral" stance on whether or not I should receive said liberties.

The problem is, the ACLU isn't just about liberties. They have a political position, and certain things rub their political position the wrong way. They are all for liberty and freedom, to a fault IMO, with some aspects (e.g., abortion). Totally not in some other cases (e.g., homeschooling/gun laws).

How can a "American Civil Liberties Union" that is really interested in protecting said liberties take a "neutral" stance on one of my liberties... and more often than not, an anti-liberty stance, in that case?

Well, they do have to pick their battles. Also, nothing is stopping you from being a member (or just supporting) both the ACLU and the NRA (other than the perhaps strange looks you would get from people in both groups).

I know far more people with a center or left leaning political persuasion that 'bear arms' than right wingers. They refuse to support the NRA because of its political leanings and they don't support the ACLU because it does them no good. Think of how badly the NRA's support base would be undermined if a politically neutral organization was available for second amendment support. The only NRA members left would be the right wing-nuts.

Think of how badly the NRA's support base would be undermined if a politically neutral organization was available for second amendment support.

Support of an individual right to keep and bear arms is (as is, incidentally, support for every individual liberty the ACLU supports) a political position. You can't be a "politically neutral" organization and be an organization dedicated to defending or advancing a particular political position or set of political positions. What you propose is incoherent, akin to

The second ammendment has more than enough supporters and lobbyists, to a fault, to need the ACLU's help. Let them concentrate on the issues that don't happen to have a group consisting of over four million people (which the 2nd ammendement most certainly does in the form of the NRA) playing watchdog over them.

More specifically, they interpret as a collective right, which puts its outside of their mission and therefore not something that they will take action on as an organization.

While certainly one can disagree with this (and certainly, the most recent US Supreme Court decision does), the ACLU openly is about defending individual liberties as it understands them, not enforcing the current status quo declared by the Supreme Court, or defending the idea

As a seasoned Internet tough guy and self proclaimed Culture Warrior (see:ireadorielly--notthetechpublisher) it is my duty to tell you the truth about the ACLU; they aren't interested in your rights, they're interested in aiding the Secular Progressive to turn America into an Atheist Communist Regigm with Rush Limbaugh as as brilliant comrade autocratic leader, and where Christians will be shot on sight -- except Muslims, they can teach Islam in school.

Finally, why didn't he just convert the cash to a money order or cashiers check?

Unless you have an account with a bank, they won't do it.

Two, that's NOT for you to say. I agree carrying that much cash isn't the wisest thing to do, but unfortunately, the way the banks are, cash gets an IMMEDIATE credit to your account whereas a check, regardless of who issues it, means at least a ten day hold on the funds. Also, maybe this guy wanted to make a political statement and actually have grounds to sue the TSA. He

Not true. I paid a security deposit with a cashier's check I got by walking up to a bank where I did not have an account and handing the teller $2800 in cash. There is a fee involved, though.

I agree carrying that much cash isn't the wisest thing to do, but unfortunately, the way the banks are, cash gets an IMMEDIATE credit to your account whereas a check, regardless of who issues it, means at least a ten day hold on the funds.

If your bank holds funds you have deposited via check for 10 days, you should get a new bank. I typically have access to funds deposited by check by the next day, two days at the most, without any holds.

I hate the ACLU with a passion, however and as in this case, they have their uses.

This is why I give money to the NRA. People like this guy are the first to form a mob when some demagogue starts telling them to go after a scapegoat. I hope if anything good is to come out of the recent wash of right-wing terrorism, it is convincing liberals of the danger of these kooks and the necessity of the second amendment to keep them in line.

Why should he have to pay a fee to transmute the money from one form to another? He was as a fund raising event where he was making a lot of small, cash transactions (selling t-shirts, etc.) He wasn't doing anything illegal and the money was obtained via lawful activities. This whole, "Assumed guilty until you pay a lawyer to prove otherwise" way of doing business in this country is a complete load of shit. I'm glad that the Ron Paul staffer stood up for his rights and I'm glad that the ACLU is championing his cause. The TSA is there to make sure that the planes are safe, and that the people boarding the planes aren't going to try to bring them down. Other than that, they need to GTFO with their wanna be law enforcement procedures.

To my knowledge, the only time you have to declare currency is on international flights and on amounts over $10,000.

Then you hate liberty and freedom. The ACLU's entire purpose is the protection of YOUR liberty.

Reread his post. He specifically states that one of the reasons he hates the ACLU is because, not only do they frequently choose not to pursue 2nd amendment liberties, but they have even opposed 2nd amendment liberties.

The ACLU's entire purpose is the protection of YOUR liberty.

Not necessarily. Their entire purpose is to further their political agenda, which frequently -- but not always -- coincides with OUR liberties. However, as OP stated, they sometimes have taken positions on issues that violated our liberties because it did not mesh with their political ideologies.

Don't get me wrong. While I sometimes (maybe even "often") disagree with the ACLU, I think the ACLU is probably a net good. But I would say that it is dangerous to assume that they -- or any other political action group -- is always entirely benevolent.

Every time I've noticed them in action the ACLU has been defending SOMEONE's freedoms. Sometimes there is a conflict, and it's true that the ACLU's position on the 2nd amendment doesn't make sense to me. (Even if you assert that the 2nd amendment is a collective right, that doesn't mean that the government is the only entity entitled to engage in authorizing collective action.)

From my reading of history, the framers of the constitution didn't particularly trust governments, and the militias that they were

Hm absolutely wrong.
If you carry more then 10,000$ then you have to show how you got the money. When you go to the bank and withdraw or deposit $10,000 or more they will ask you to fill out a form (you have to by law). You get a copy of this form. Keep it with you when you go on the plane and the TSA can suck it. Don't have this letter (e.g. you've been saving money underneath your bed) and the secret service will ask you questions. They CANNOT take your money away from you unless they have cause that

I don't know. I used to work for someone who sold stuff at computer shows on the weekend. We would carry cash in a metal box. It is frequently known as a cashbox. It had a lock on the front and dividers in it to separate various denominations. I can easily see someone in the situation described transporting the money in a cahsbox (which could easily be described as a "metal box",